Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I commend my colleague for his statement this morning. I want to underscore the last point he is making. Here we are with the highest unemployment figure since the Great Depression and we are debating the gun issue. I come from a State that probably has more manufacturers of guns than any other in the country. I think Connecticut is still the largest manufacturer. The idea we are going to take an entire industry and exclude it from liability should there be a just cause to bring them to a bar of justice is rather remarkable to me in light of everything else going on in the country. So I commend my colleague from Rhode Island. We come from the same region of the country. We have lost 45,000 jobs in my State in the manufacturing sector in the last 30 months. I ask whether, in his view, there aren't higher priorities we ought to be addressing other than excusing an entire industry from liability against negligence?

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. If he will yield further?

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I will join him in opposing cloture on this bill and I hope the leadership would move on with another issue that I guarantee has a far higher priority with the American public than to satisfy one industry's fear that they might have to appear before the bar of justice to explain their behavior. The idea we would exclude this industry--we tried to do that on another issue on the MTBE issue that came up on the energy bill. As my colleague may know, I offered the securities reform bill, the National Standards legislation, Y2K, terrorism insurance. I am also a strong advocate of class action reform. I am not an opponent at all of trying to reform the tort system. But the idea that we would eliminate an entire industry from liability due to the potentiality of their products for causing great harm is amazing to me. Given the challenges our country faces, it is amazing we would spend time on this legislation.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for an additional question? I was curious whether my colleague would share with us what problem this legislation seeks to solve. Normally, when you bring a bill to the floor you try to solve the problem. I wonder if my colleague has any idea of the volumes of lawsuits that have been brought against gun manufacturers that the author of this legislation is trying to solve.

Mr. DODD. If the Senator will yield for one more additional question, I want to make the point that my colleague is absolutely correct. Further, is he aware that over the last 10 years there have been 33 cases brought by municipalities--one in the State of New York--and none of them have resulted in conclusions that have been harmful to the gun manufacturing industry? With a population of 280 million people, there have been 33 or 34 cases in almost 10 years, not one of which has resulted in an adverse decision for the manufacturers. Is my colleague aware of that?

Mr. DODD. The police chiefs from across the country are urging the Senate not to protect gun dealers who arm killers.

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. The Senator made reference to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I come this afternoon to express my deep concern over the growing anarchy and lawlessness in Haiti. This ominous situation, only miles off our own shores, threatens to overwhelm the elected government of Haiti in a number of days, and unless our country, the United States, along with other members of the international community, acts to stop it, it will get worse and pose far many more serious problems for us. In my view, 3 years of neglected, mixed signals and inertia by the present administration--and the international community, for that matter--have brought a country already steeped in misery and poverty to the brink of uncontrollable violence and chaos. With respect to our own administration, which has sought to remake the political landscape of the Middle East, it is profoundly disturbing and unsettling that it seems incapable or unwilling to act to fortify a struggling democracy in our hemisphere. I will not defend every action of the Aristide government in Haiti. There have been major problems there. I accept that and understand that. But no one denies this government was duly elected by the people of Haiti and it is being threatened today by a group of thugs and rebels, many of them who come from the previous death squads and ousted armed forces members which ruled that country with a brutal hand, who make up the majority of the people holding the second and fourth largest cities in Haiti today. I am not standing here as some political defense of a specific administration, but I do stand here as someone who believes that if we are going to defend democracy, we have to be willing to stand up when fragile democracies, such as this desperately poor country, are being threatened by a group of people who do not have the interests of democracy at heart and have no right to be threatening this democratically elected government. While I cannot discuss the administration's classified briefing of this morning, I can say that I was stunned by the lack of any coherent administration strategy for addressing the violence that may unseat the elected government. It is no secret that Haiti's long history of authoritarian governments as well as political and social upheaval have made it ripe to destabilize. The Haitian people continue to be the principal victims of this instability. The statistics are devastating. Eighty percent of Haitians live in abject poverty; that is, 8 out of 10 people. By 1998, the World Bank reported that the per capita income in Haiti was $250 a year, less than one-tenth of the average in all of Latin America. In addition, only half of Haitian children attend school. Only 45 percent of the Haitian population can read or write and only marginally so. That is less than the people of Iraq. The scarcity of resources have contributed to a public health crisis in that nation. Fifteen percent of children don't live past the age of 5. The average life expectancy is under 50 years of age. Haitians suffer from the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the Western Hemisphere, roughly 6 percent of the population. I note the presence of the Presiding Officer who, in a former life and occupation, knew these numbers and statistics as well as anybody. I appreciate her listening to this because she understands better than many what goes on in these impoverished nations. Equally important are the intangible effects of this instability in this little country. Chief among them is the growing chaos in civil society. Indeed, the very fabric of Haitian society is at risk as pro and antigovernment factions armed with every imaginable weapon are increasingly clashing in the streets. Just in the last 2 weeks, more than 50 people have been killed in politically charged street protests. This violence took a new and disturbing turn when a group of armed gangs seized the towns of Cap Haitien and Gonaives, Haiti's second and fourth largest cities. They burned police stations and homes of supporters of Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide. The year 2004 was to be a year of rejoicing and celebration for the people of Haiti as they were expected to proudly celebrate 200 years of independence. Instead they are forced to flee from their communities to escape seemingly indiscriminate violence. There is no mystery, in my view, who is behind these armed attacks. They have audaciously identified themselves to local and international journalists. They are former members of the Haitian armed forces and former members of the so-called FRAPH, the paramilitary organizations that terrorized Haitians in the early 1990s. They were responsible for the deaths of thousands of Haitians and the flight of tens of thousands more who were prepared to risk their lives at sea coming to this country rather than bear the repression and violence that was a daily occurrence in that country. They are back in Haiti, and they are within an eyelash of taking control of Haiti again. We are going to see the effects of it here in a matter of days. These armed thugs have publicly announced that they intend to march on Port-au-Prince within hours. In fact, within 15 minutes of my address today, a decision will be made by the so-called political opposition in Haiti on whether to accept the recommended political solution that would bring about a new Prime Minister, sort of a copresidency with the present elected government. That is the offer to be made. It has been rejected in the last several days by these gangs and the opposition. At 5 o'clock they are going to announce whether they are willing to try it again. I hope they will try. I hope they will accept what has been offered to them by CARICOM, our Government, and others. If they don't, I am fearful that we will see a continued rise in this violence, the cost of human life, of innocent life unnecessarily. The administration up to now has offered only words. I commend Colin Powell. He has said that we respect this elected government and we don't believe it ought to be overthrown, that we will not support any removal of this democratically elected government. But those are words. They are important words coming from an important individual, but it doesn't diffuse the growing crisis. A rejection of the political solution does not portend well for the people of this country. A violent coup that unseats the duly elected government is not an auspicious foundation for further stability in that country as the painful aftermath of the 1991 coups should remind us. It is too late for diplomacy alone to turn the tide. The political opposition's rebuff of last weekend's diplomatic mission makes that painfully clear. The international community must act with strength and resolve to thwart these criminal elements and prevent the impending humanitarian refugee crisis that is about to explode before our very eyes. It is time for the administration to take the lead in this matter. I am not suggesting that we send some massive force. We are talking about 200, 300, 400 gang members, thugs. It is not a large operation. It wouldn't take much of an international force to send a message that we are not going to allow this government, this crowd to overthrow the elected government. Our position as of right now is that we won't do anything. We are not going to step up until there is some political context in which to operate. There will be a political context when we let these thugs know that we are not going to tolerate the overthrow of this government by asking others to join us. I hope the administration would be prepared to act, particularly in light of what I anticipate to be the rejection of the offer of a political solution. While I commend CARICOM, the Caribbean community's organization, for ongoing efforts to find a temporary solution to the political crisis, these efforts have so far been fruitless because the political opposition hopes they will be able to watch an overthrow of this elected government and then count on the U.S. Government to come in and sanction them, as if somehow they have arrived in power legitimately. Let me say to them today: If you think for a single second you are going to get any support out of this Congress by overthrowing an elected government, you are fooling yourselves. It is not going to happen. This government of ours needs to speak loudly and clearly to these people that this is not what the United States stands for. This is not an endorsement of every action by the Aristide government any more than we endorse every action of other governments around this hemisphere or elsewhere. But to sit back and sort of wink, in a sense, that it is OK for these gangs and thugs and literally drug dealers, some of the worst elements that that country has ever seen, come back into power and be able to overthrow this government is a huge mistake. It is occurring on this administration's watch. To allow it to happen will be tragic. Let there be no doubt the United States will suffer, along with the Haitian people, if we permit this to go on. Haiti is located only miles from our doorstep. Lawlessness in Haiti only ripens conditions for narcotrafficking and illegal migration. Haiti is already a major transition site for drugs coming into this country. We know that already. If we think we are going to get a better deal from these gangs that are about to overthrow this country, we are making a mistake. Engagement with the Haitian people is clearly in the best interests of both our peoples. Not only is the lack of real leadership on the part of our own country disgraceful and disappointing, it is dangerous. Without that leadership, there will be worse violence and greater chaos. Once security has been restored, the administration has at its disposal the tools to move both sides toward a political compromise, should it choose to utilize them. With respect to the Government of Haiti, that includes providing direct assistance to the Haitian police, assistance in the form of training and equipment in return for compliance with the CARICOM initiative. With respect to political parties and civil society, the United States should revoke U.S. visas to any of these organization members who are unwilling to participate wholeheartedly with the diplomatic efforts to find compromise or who support or condone violence. If it takes legislation banning these people from getting visas, I will do it. These people travel to the United States all the time and then turn around and provide support to these thugs and then anticipate coming here when it gets a little dangerous. They have no right to come to America, if they participate in this action going on in Haiti as we speak. The Dominican Republic and other Caribbean countries must take action to stop these territories from being used as a transit point for illegal arms shipments to Haiti or as staging areas for armed Haitian opposition groups. Equally important, the United States and the international community must stop ignoring the negative impact that our economic policy of withholding assistance to the Haitian people is having on Haiti's stability. Corruption aside, the Haitian government's lack of resources would preclude anybody from effectively ruling that country. It is disingenuous of the Bush administration and the international community to cut off hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to these desperately poor people, some of the poorest people in the world. They needed just a small amount of help, and we were unwilling to give them any over the last 3 or 4 years. It is no wonder that chaos is running wild in that country today. I hope the administration will take far more concrete steps to respond to this crisis than they have presently. My hope is that within a matter of minutes the political opposition and others will agree to the political solution offered to them. If not, the United States and the international community need to step up and offer to send in armed forces, if necessary, to protect the overthrow of this legitimately elected government.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to do that and I thank my friend from Nevada.

Mr. DODD. With the attention of my friend from Nevada, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 6 or 7 minutes. I think there are a couple of other speakers on the majority side who want to be here. When they come over, I will wrap up my remarks to give them time to be heard on the matter.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have been listening to the arguments posed by our colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and our colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions. I find myself sort of agreeing with both of these individuals. Clearly, this is an area that cries out for some solution. We have been back at this issue over and over again. Like my colleague from Alabama, and I suspect my colleague from Illinois as well, I was home in Connecticut over the past week and I have received letters from radiologists, and I have talked to OB/GYNs and others. My State ranks third in the country in the rate of premiums for OB/GYNs, which I will address in a minute. This is an area that clearly needs to be addressed. So I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Alabama, that is, to see if we cannot find solutions to this. As the Senator may recall, I have not been shy when it comes to tort reform issues, having authored the securities litigation reform bill, uniform standards legislation; and I have dealt with the issue of terrorism insurance, and Y2K legislation with Bob Bennett. I am someone who wishes we were debating class action reform now. There, we have an agreement. It is not going to satisfy everybody, but I have agreed with Bill Frist and others. Senators Schumer and Landrieu and I have worked across party lines to come up with a compromise solution on class action reform. That is a bill I believe we could actually adopt. Here we are going to spend 2 days debating a cloture motion we both recognize is probably going to fail this evening. But we have a class action reform bill we can get done. I regret I am not arguing on behalf of that proposal, rather than standing here and reluctantly disagreeing with this particular bill; although I am agreeing with my colleague from Alabama that we cannot allow year after year to go by without addressing this issue. I regret we didn't make the effort here we did on class action. On class action, once the cloture motion was defeated on the motion to proceed, people reached out and said let's see where we can find common ground on this. I think we have done that. Only time will tell if the compromise will work. That is how you have to function in this body, when you have 100 Members representing different constituencies and ideas and proposals, where there is a commonality and purpose to try to arrive at an answer to a staggering problem. One of the problems--not all, but one of the problems--is associated with health care. I will go into that in a minute. It seems to me we should pause and reach out and see if we cannot find that common answer. It may not satisfy everybody, but certainly it will come up with some intelligent responses to this problem. So I say to my constituency in Connecticut, and elsewhere, I am listening to you and I hear you. I know we have to answer this. The question is, is this particular proposal the answer to the problem we face, with the rising increase in malpractice premiums. What actually could be done that may address the issue? As my colleagues know, this legislation is similar to the one the Senate rejected last year. It would place, as we all know, a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages that can be awarded to a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case. The bill we are considering today has been narrowed, but in narrowing it, its defects have not been remedied. Like S. 11, the previous bill, this bill would apply to claims brought by health care professionals, health care organizations, such as HMOs, insurance companies, as well as product liability claims brought against medical device and drug manufacturers, by and on behalf of pregnant women and children. However, it would only apply to claims relating to obstetrics and gynecological services. We are dealing with a reduced universe of people in this area, much narrower from the proposal of last year. Once again, this legislation would cap noneconomic damages at $250,000. It would put the same cap on punitive damages while imposing a stiffer evidentiary standard. It would also reduce economic damages a victim could collect by subtracting benefits paid by health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, and Social Security benefits. In short, it would make it much harder for the victims of medical malpractice in this narrow area to receive fair and just compensation, in my view. This legislation would not affect all victims of malpractice. We pointed out the bill we are dealing with seeks to limit the legal rights of a specific segment of our society, women and newborns. It is important to remember that this bill is going to affect those who have actually been injured by malpractice. We are not debating whether there has been a judgment. There has been a decision that malpractice has occurred. A jury has already, in these cases, decided the victims are eligible to collect noneconomic damages. Furthermore, it will hurt the most seriously injured, those who might receive a noneconomic damage award of more than $250,000 were it not for the arbitrary cap. We are essentially telling women and infants that the injuries and suffering they experience are not worth as much as injuries and suffering of others. The assumption is if we just do this in this one area, we are then going to be able to bring down the costs of these premiums. In fact, I suggest that if the empirical evidence made that case, I would be very tempted to support this bill. I say that to my colleagues who are the authors of this legislation. But, in fact, the data and information, unfortunately, does not substantiate the claim that by establishing a cap, you will achieve the desired results of lesser premiums on malpractice insurance. The argument used by supporters of this bill is OB/GYNs are particularly hit by rising medical premiums. I want to make it clear that I am not insensitive to that claim. As I said earlier, I have heard from many in my own State. In Connecticut, we face the third highest premiums in the country for OB/GYNs. My doctors pay an average of $102,000 every year in medical liability premiums. I have heard from them on numerous occasions about the difficulties they face in the current environment. The vast majority are good doctors who are working to provide the best possible care they can for their patients. They are doctors on whom families in Connecticut and newborns can rely. It is the same across the country. I know, having had a newborn in my own household, a child born to my wife Jackie and me a little over 2 years ago, the tremendous care and attention we received from our OB/GYN in Virginia, where Grace was born. The question is not whether these people are paying higher premiums. The question is, Is the solution being proposed by this legislation actually going to address this problem? Again, if I thought it would do that, I would be very tempted to support this legislation, as someone who has offered legislation dealing with frivolous lawsuits and other claims. I am not adverse to tort reform. In fact, I am disappointed. We are discussing tort reform in this instance, and we are also going to be talking about the tort liability of gun manufacturers. It is going to be interesting to hear people on that issue. We had language included in the Energy bill to deal with MTBE. Senator Schumer of New York eloquently made the case, asking why we should be eliminating the liability of a product that was causing such damage. I am frustrated to know that we are protecting people from liability because of the political pressures that occur. I am prepared to support intelligent tort reform, but this problem, as serious as it is, is not addressed by this solution. Will this legislation do anything to reduce premiums? Let me tell you why I don't think it does. If we are limiting the ability of women and young children to hold accountable doctors, nurses, insurance companies, and others for harm resulting from a mistake, we certainly must make sure we are doing so for a very good reason. The answer to the question posed above is a resounding no, in my view. The suggestive link between jury awards and rising premiums has not been established at all. In fact, to the contrary. Nor is there a link between insurance premiums and access to health care. In fact, the evidence suggests quite the opposite. The two pillars upon which this bill is based are deeply flawed, in my view. First, some would suggest jury awards have exploded in both numbers and dollar amounts. That is something we will hear over and over, that victims are winning more and more so-called jackpot malpractice cases. But the facts are quite different. The amount defendants and insurers are paying for medical malpractice claims, including jury awards and settlements, has increased in a manner that is consistent with and even lags behind medical inflation. Over the 10-year period from 1992 to 2001, the mean payout in medical malpractice cases rose by 6.2 percent per year, while medical inflation was rising at 6.7 percent annually over the same period of time. In other words, malpractice awards are rising exactly in the manner we would expect. They are tracking health care costs. Of course, a rise in premiums might also be explained by an increase in the number of malpractice claims. That is also an argument we are hearing. Again, this is not the case. Between 1995 and 2000, the number of claims filed actually decreased by 4 percent, and the number of medical malpractice payouts decreased by 8.2 percent between 2001 and 2002. So we are not seeing these numbers go up financially, nor are the actual numbers of malpractice cases increasing. Both are the two pillars upon which this bill is based. It is the reason people are saying we need to have the cap on these noneconomic awards. The case made by supporters of this legislation is further damaged, in my view, when we compare States that currently have caps on noneconomic damages with States that have no such caps. As I mentioned previously, my home State of Connecticut has the third highest average premium for OB/GYNs. Connecticut has no cap. However, seven of the 10 States with the highest premiums do have caps. Last year, premiums actually increased by 17.1 percent for OB/GYNs in States with caps compared to a 16.6 percent increase in States without caps. In the year 2003, the average premium for an OB/GYN in States with caps was $63,000. The average premium in States without caps was $59,000. So if anything, the evidence suggests caps on patient damages actually correspond to higher insurance premiums for doctors. I said that rather quickly. Let me run by it again and make the case. The argument, again, is if you don't have caps, then these premiums go up. But if you look at places that have caps, seven of the 10 States with the highest premiums for OB/GYNs do have caps--seven of the 10. Last year, premiums actually increased by 17.1 percent in States with caps--an increase of 17.1 percent--compared to 16.6 percent in States without caps. Again, if anything, the evidence suggests caps on patient damages actually correspond to higher insurance premiums for doctors. The ineffectiveness of caps is illustrated by the experience in the State of California. Ironically, supporters of caps point to California as the model for limiting noneconomic damages. The State does, in fact, have a $250,000 cap and premiums have remained stable relative to the rest of the country. However, California adopted the cap in 1975, and over the next 13 years in California, with a cap of $250,000, premiums increased by 450 percent. This is comparable to a nationwide trend during that same period. Then in 1988, California did something else. It passed comprehensive insurance reform. Only at that point did insurance premiums stabilize, decreasing 2 percent between 1988 and 2001. So for 13 years, when they had caps on the awards, they actually had premiums go up 450 percent, tracking the national average. In 1988, they put a cap on insurance premiums. Then they began to see the decline. California is very worthwhile to look at, but we have to look at it in its totality. Don't disregard what happened in 1988. If we only look at 1975 to 1988, for that 13 years, there is nothing to brag about at all. The numbers went up as much as they did all across the country. It is only from 1988 up to now that we begin to see the real changes as a result of the insurance reforms in that State. So California is a good example, but look to all of California. I could continue to quote numbers to underscore my point, but I do not want to bore my colleagues with recitations of data. I think it is important because without knowing what the facts are and understanding the argument, we cannot understand how best to deal with a very legitimate problem of trying to get these premium costs down. Does this solution meet that problem? One has to look at the data and the facts, and the facts are not holding this point up very well, in my view. The point is very simple: The number of medical malpractice claims is not rising. The amount awarded to victims is consistent with inflation. The story in States with caps is similar to that without caps. Based on this evidence, we are being asked to limit the rights of pregnant mothers and infants. I do not think we ought to do that. The facts fail utterly to dictate such a conclusion. If neither the number nor the amount of malpractice awards can explain rising premiums, then what is the explanation? Something is going on that is causing these premiums to continue to skyrocket as they are in my State and others across the country. According to several analyses that have been done, the increase in premiums does in fact correlate with the stock market and interest rates. One recent study showed that premiums very closely tracked the insurers' economic cycle. During good economic times, insurers slash premiums in order to attract as much business as possible. Insurance companies receive their money from two sources. They get it from premium payments as well as investments. So when there is a good, healthy market going on, then they will reduce premiums because the cycles in the market are allowing them to sustain their economic growth. When there is a downturn in the economy and the stock market is not doing as well, the insurance industry is faced with only one other solution and that is to raise the premiums in order to keep the cashflow coming in. So it is not complicated. As someone who comes from a State with a lot of insurance companies, I know that is how this is done. There is not some great magical secret out there. This is exactly how it occurs. So, obviously, during good economic times, insurers will cut the premiums in order to attract as much business as possible, which makes sense. This is because every new policy brings in additional float, money to invest in a booming market so they bring in the dollars. However, when the market turns and investment returns are weak, as has happened in the last few years, insurers raise their rates or, in some cases, leave the market altogether. When this happens, the result is often a crisis in the availability and affordability of insurance, and that is exactly what we are seeing today. I will take a moment to address one other claim made by the supporters of this bill, and that is that rising premiums have reduced access to care for women and infants. Again, this is a very significant claim and needs to be addressed. Once again, I do not think the facts support that argument. Between 1999 and the year 2002, the number of OB/GYNs across the country actually increased by 1,700 people. Only 6 States out of 50 saw a decrease in the number of OB/GYNs. That is not good news for those six States, but the argument that across the country this is occurring is not borne out by the facts. Actually, there were 1,700 new OB/GYNs in 44 States, so the number is stable or increasing, and in 6 States the number is going down. We ought to be conscious of that because that could be a trend that needs to be addressed. Again, I underscore what I said at the outset. This is a serious problem but a serious problem demands a serious solution. Unfortunately, this bill is not that answer. As an interesting note, by the way, where we are losing OB/GYNs, half of those six States have caps on the amount that can be collected in noneconomic terms. So we are talking about a bill that places caps on noneconomic awards, and in six States the number of OB/GYNs is declining, and yet three out of the six States have actual caps. One has to ask oneself: If this is failing in half of the States in terms of attracting or keeping OB/GYNs, is this bill or this idea the right solution to this problem? I think the conclusion is no, it is not, unfortunately, if those are the facts. A GAO report from August of last year identified access to care as a problem--and I am quoting--``in scattered, often rural areas where providers identified other long-standing factors that also affect the availability of services.'' The question was asked: Why is this happening? The General Accounting Office comes back and said there are a lot of other factors that are causing a decline in the number of OB/GYNs. In addition, the GAO found--and I am quoting them again--``that many of the reported provider actions were not substantiated or did not affect access to health care on a widespread basis.'' Unfortunately, this bill is a misguided attempt to solve a health care problem with a tort reform solution. I am disappointed that we are not using this time today to discuss the real issues. One issue I wish we were discussing is class action reform because I think we have come up with an answer that a majority of us could support. Regrettably, we are not spending two days debating that issue. We are debating a bill that is not going to go anywhere because the solution that is being called for does not do the job. So instead of taking the few valuable days we have in this Chamber to deal with some issues before we adjourn for elections and conventions, we are not debating class action reform, we are debating a bill that is going nowhere. That does not make any sense to me at all in terms of this agenda. So this is a waste of our time. Let me get into other areas of health care because there are health care problems that need addressing. I am disappointed, though, that we are not going to debate class action reform but instead these tort reform issues. We do have problems with access to care in our country. We do have a patient safety problem in our country. We do have a health care quality issue in this Nation of ours. We do have a problem with rising health care costs in the Nation. This bill does not answer any of those problems. Why are we not discussing real solutions to the issue of access to health care, to patient safety, to health care quality in this country, and to the problem of rising health care costs? The American people have a right to expect from this body better answers than the ones we are giving them on this bill dealing with the issue of rising premium costs. Supporters of this bill are right about one thing: Far too many in this country have little or no access to health care. The latest Census Bureau figures released in September are alarming, to say the least. Forty-four million of our fellow countrymen, more than one out of every seven people in our great Nation, were without health care in the year 2002. This figure represents a 10 percent increase in the number of uninsured since the year 2000. Numerous studies have shown that being uninsured has a drastic impact on the amount and quality of care individuals receive. Put very simply, the uninsured receive less care, lower quality care, and are at a greater risk of dying. The Institute of Medicine has estimated that every year 18,000 of our fellow citizens die prematurely in this country as a result of the effects of being uninsured. Our country has a growing health care underclass. The Bush administration's response to this crisis has been woefully inadequate. Tax credits and health savings accounts will do little or nothing to help the vast majority of the 44 million people who are uninsured, such as low-income working families. By the way, the majority of the uninsured work every day on one, two, three, and four jobs. These are not people sitting around doing nothing. They are working. And we have nothing to say to them. We are debating an issue of tort reform when we ought to be dealing with how to provide some health care coverage for these people and explain why 18,000 lives a year are being lost prematurely because of the lack of health insurance. We should be talking about creative ideas to offer meaningful assistance to the uninsured. There are a variety of ideas out there that are worth discussing. We also have a health care quality and patient safety problem in the country. Again, according to the Institute of Medicine, as many as 98,000 Americans are killed every year as a result of medical errors. A study conducted by the Rand Corporation and published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year came to a similar conclusion. Individuals received the recommended treatment for their condition in only 55 percent of the cases, according to that study. In other words, nearly half the time patients did not receive the appropriate care. Why are we not debating that and discussing that issue today? There are a variety of proposals to address this real threat to the American public. I am currently working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle on issues that would have some real impact on the quality of care in our country. One meaningful step we can take almost immediately is to encourage the use of information technology in the health care setting. The Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, is deeply interested in this subject matter, as are several other colleagues. Improving quality is the best tool we have to address rising health care costs. Supporters of this legislation we are debating today would have you believe medical liability costs are the main driver of rising health care costs. But that is simply not the case. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that malpractice costs represent, at most, only 2 percent of the overall health care costs in our country. We ought to address this issue, but let's talk about it in the context in which it is really a problem. Furthermore, while health care costs more than doubled between the years 1987 and 2001, the total amount spent on medical liability premiums rose by only 52 percent over that same period. The real drivers of health care costs are prescription drugs and hospital spending. We should be using the time to pursue proposals to address these issues, including expanding the use of inexpensive generic prescription drugs, better chronic disease management and preventive medicine, and improving health care quality and efficiency. Let me finish by saying, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Children and Families, improving the health of women and children has been a priority of mine and many others who serve on that committee, including the Presiding Officer. If my colleagues are genuinely interested in healthier mothers and healthier babies, I can suggest any number of pieces of legislation that are pending here that would represent real steps towards achieving that goal. I am the coauthor of two bills, the Newborn Screening Save Lives Act and the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who Deliver Infants Early Act, the PREEMIE legislation, that I believe would go a long way towards improving the health and well-being of newborns. During the 107th Congress, Senator Harkin introduced the Safe Motherhood Act a comprehensive bill to ensure safe pregnancy for all women. Senator Bingaman introduced legislation to expand health care coverage for pregnant women under Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. There are a variety of such bills out there, offered on a bipartisan basis. The Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, and I have worked very hard on a number of these bills. I am not going to suggest they solve all the problems, but they are designed to deal with some of the very issues pregnant women and infants face every day. The idea that you are going to put a cap on noneconomic recoveries here and that is somehow going to address these other issues is ludicrous on its face. We ought to be spending the valuable time of this institution in debating and discussing and getting some of this legislation passed that could make a difference to these people. I am not shy when it comes to tort reform. I have spent a good deal of time in my Senate career authoring bills dealing with tort reform. This is not one of them. This is not tort reform. This is not addressing the issue that people face every day and doctors face with rising premiums. There is a way of addressing that problem. When we get around to doing it and working on it, then we can take some pride in passing something that does something meaningful in this area. This bill doesn't do it. I hope cloture will be denied. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Lauren Doyle, a legislative fellow in my office.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in tribute to U.S. Army Sgt. Benjamin Gilman, of Meriden, Connecticut, who died in Afghanistan on January 29, 2004, at the age of 28. Sergeant Gilman was killed along with seven other American soldiers in a weapons cache explosion near the town of Ghazni. He was part of the 41st Engineer Battalion, 10th Mountain Division, based in Fort Drum, NY. Benjamin Gilman was always doing his best to help others, long before he enlisted in our Armed Forces. As a teenager, he won an award for his volunteer work at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center. When visiting his mother at her job at the Curtis Home for the elderly, he would spend time with the senior citizens who lived there, sharing conversations over games of checkers. While working at a fast food restaurant at the local mall, Benjamin made friends with a group of elderly women he would come to call his ``adopted grandmothers.'' While he was committed to service of all kinds, it was always Benjamin Gilman's dream to serve his country in the military. Even as a 7-year-old playing with action figures, young Benjamin told anyone who would listen that he would be a soldier someday. Benjamin was a special person for many people, and there were many people who were special to him. One of those people was Jean Moran. When Benjamin was 11 years old, he met Jean through a local Big Brother/Big Sister program. It was the first time that the program's organizers had assigned a big sister to a boy. But Jean became a fixture in Benjamin's life for years to come, taking on the role of the older sibling that he never had. Of all the bonds and friendships Benjamin had, though, none was more lasting or special than his relationship with his mother, Edie Gilman. A single mom, Edie poured her heart, soul, time, and energy into her only child. In the last letter he sent home from Iraq, Benjamin thanked his mother for everything she did for him, calling her his ``best friend in the entire world.'' My heart truly goes out to Edie Gilman, who has suffered the kind of loss that is difficult for most of us to comprehend. We often speak of the weighty burden borne by our men and women in uniform--and rightfully so. But we would do well to also remember the burden placed on the shoulders of the families of these brave Americans. While our troops are defending our freedoms overseas, all across America there are husbands and wives who must bear the responsibility of raising children alone. There are sons and daughters who must do without a helping hand with their schoolwork, or an enthusiastic supporter at their soccer games. There are brothers and sisters who are missing a role model, a mentor, a friend. There are fathers and mothers, who endure anxious days and sleepless nights knowing that their children are in harm's way. And then there are people like Edie Gilman, who one day learn the heartbreaking news that someone they love will never be coming home. And so today I salute the courage, the commitment, and the conviction of Benjamin Gilman, a young man who lost his life fulfilling the noblest of callings, defending our Nation and the values we hold dear. And I offer my deepest and most heartfelt sympathies to Edie Gilman, who has made a sacrifice for her country that is too great for words.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it has been almost a year since three Americans--Marc Gonsalves, Keith Stansell, and Thomas Howes--were taken hostage by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC. The presence of American hostages in Colombia is deeply troubling, and one can only imagine the struggles and trials that these three brave individuals have had to endure since their plane crashed in the Colombian jungle last year on February 13. I rise today to again call attention to their plight and urge the Bush administration and Colombian Government to do everything possible to gain their release. There is no higher priority than finding a way to bring these three Americans home safely, and I know that all of our prayers remain with them and their families during these difficult times. For the families of Marc, Keith, and Tom, this past year has been a heart wrenching experience. I have a special interest in the fate of Marc Gonsalves, whose mother, Jo Rosano, is a Connecticut resident. Marc's father, George Gonsavales, is also a resident of our State. At every opportunity, I have worked to bring about the release of these three Americans. Indeed, over the last 8 months whenever I have met with Colombian President Uribe or other Colombian officials, I have urged them to make every effort to gain their release. President Uribe indicated to me that the Colombian military continues every day to search for them and that these efforts will not cease until they are found. In addition, during a hearing last fall of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I urged the now-serving United States Ambassador to Colombia, William Wood, to make their rescue his highest priority. He pledged to do so and has kept me informed of developments in this matter. I have also continually urged the Bush administration to provide all means of assistance, including technological assistance, to bring about the safe rescue of Marc, Keith, and Tom. It is my understanding that the administration continues to work with Colombian authorities to locate them. Certainly, their rescue will not be easy. However, I have to believe that more can be done. This must be the highest of priorities. The airing last year of the videotape showing them in captivity only further highlights the importance of this effort. The families of Marc, Keith, and Tom will find no rest until their sons, husbands, fathers, and brothers return home safely. I will be meeting with Jo Rosano tomorrow, when she, along with other family members of the hostages, come to Washington, DC on the anniversary of this tragic incident to urge United States policymakers not to forget their family members in captivity. And I will tell her what I have said here today: that we must make every effort and we must leave no stone unturned in our search. As Americans, Marc, Keith, and Tom are also our sons--they are members of our extended American family. For my part, I pledge to continue to do everything possible to ensure their speedy release and safe return. I urge the Bush administration and Colombian Government to do the same. We must not rest until they are all home safely.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I rise in support of the transit amendment to the highway funding bill. As a member of the Banking Committee, I commend Chairman Shelby, Senator Sarbanes, and their staffs for their hard work and their willingness to reach consensus on this important measure. I also commend members of the Finance Committee for also discharging their duty to fully finance the transit spending authorized in the budget. Our Democratic leader, who also sits as a member of that committee, was particularly helpful in that regard. The legislation passed yesterday by the Banking Committee was no easy achievement. The members of the Banking Committee have different transit needs for their States. There are some Senators on the Banking Committee from mostly rural States, others from States with largely urban centers, and others whose States have a combination of both. The transit title, which was unanimously approved yesterday in the Banking Committee, goes a long way toward balancing these needs. Although this legislation is not perfect, it does come close to achieving a national transit policy, which is a goal I believe was not achieved in the highway funding portion of the bill. The transit bill has a number of important provisions: It provides $56.5 billion for mass transit over the next six years. This amount is a significant investment for the future. I am hopeful that more progress can be made to increase assistance for those regions that rely heavily on mass transit but whose aging infrastructure needs repair and modernization. If anybody were to deny that a problem exists in this regard, I would urge them to read an article which appeared in yesterday's Stamford Advocate entitled ``Metro-North Struggles To Keep Cars in Service.'' It describes how a combination of cold weather and aging railcars has knocked one-third of the aging New Haven Line out of service for several weeks. In fact, about 37 percent of the New Haven Line is out of service for maintenance. The Metro-North Line has lost 230 out of its 800-car fleet for repairs. Thousands of commuters in Connecticut rely on this service to get to and from work, travel to and from school, and to see their families. The legislation devotes significant resources to the Job Access as well as the Elderly and Disabled transit programs, which have been successful in providing transportation services to many of the most vulnerable members of society. Such transportation services enable low- income individuals, as well as senior citizens and the disabled, to have access to jobs, education, and training, which ultimately fosters self-sufficiency and improves their quality of life. The transit title also includes funds to small communities with significant transit infrastructure that currently do not qualify under existing formula programs. Many cities in Connecticut and throughout the region could benefit from this program. Finally, I am pleased that the transit amendment includes language I authorized to promote the establishment of medical access programs. Many Americans lack transportation services to take them to the hospital to see a doctor, get medication, or undergo dialysis. Often their only choice is to call an ambulance, even if it is not truly a medical emergency, because such services are reimbursed under Medicare. By encouraging community transit systems to establish medical access programs, we can reduce costs to Medicare while serving as a lifeline to those Americans in need of health care. I am hopeful that more progress can be made to increase our investments in mass transit. I am grateful to Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes for listening to other Senator's concerns throughout this process, and I look forward to working with them as this legislation moves forward. I as unanimous consent to print the article to which I referred in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend all of my colleagues who worked on this legislation. This is a difficult bill. I have been around this institution long enough to know that when you have highway bills and formulas, it is always complicated. We are seeking perfection, and we are never going to achieve it. I admire those who serve on these committees and have to work on these issues to try to put these bills together. I begin on that note. I also thank my colleague from Florida who knows a lot about transportation issues and has worked on these issues a long time. I associate myself with his remarks. I am concerned about this bill. I have talked with my colleagues about it. I wish to say publicly that I am grateful to the distinguished Senator from Vermont, the Senator from Nevada, and others who spent some time talking with me about this bill and what happens to my State. Obviously, we all begin by looking at what happens to our States in a bill such as this. Connecticut receives, under the present version of this legislation, the smallest increase of all of the 50 States, a 10- percent increase. I am deeply worried that we are no longer discussing a bill that was once rooted primarily in the notion of need and are now moving into a different consideration for how these dollars will be spent. My State is a donor State. It contributes more each year in tax revenues to the United States than we receive back in funding. As a small State, we do not contribute more than we get back in terms of gasoline tax revenues. My State is 100 miles long. The average vehicle can cross my State with about 3 gallons of gasoline. Yet I think everyone is aware geographically where my State is located. It is a thoroughfare. Millions of vehicles literally every year pass on the Northeast corridor through my State. So with the wear and tear on our highways, the tremendous congestion, the huge volume of transportation that occurs, it is unfair to make allocations solely based on gas tax revenues. I particularly note, as I look at the managers' amendment, that there is a provision that provides for a floor of a 35-percent increase for States with a total population density of less than 20 persons per square mile, a total population of less than 1 million people, as reported in the decennial census conducted by the Federal Government 2000, or a median household income of $35,000. There are seven States that fall into that category. Where is the need? Those States receive a 35-percent increase in funding, regardless of whether there is any traffic, or whether there has been any deterioration in road conditions at all. Here we are taking seven States which have fewer than 20 people per square mile, a population of less than 1 million people, or a median income of less than $35,000, and yet they get a 35-percent increase. But a State such as mine that has cars and trucks passing through all night long and all day long believes that these highways are critically important to our economy and well-being. I am troubled by how this formulation is being considered. It is worthy of note that when we first wrote the highway bill, to which Senator McCain referred, back in the 1950s, it was called the National Defense Interstate Highway System. Few people today would deny the indispensable role that the Nation's highways, as well as mass transit systems, play in homeland security. I can say to my colleagues, I am sure they are aware of this, that on September 11, 2001, one of the reasons my State was able to contribute as much as it did to the devastation in New York is because of that National Defense Highway System that Dwight Eisenhower authored back in the 1950s. It allowed for our first responders to get into New York City, as well as for people to flee that city, which is exactly what Dwight Eisenhower had in mind when we created the National Defense Highway System. Today, as we talk about the needs of my State and others--by the way, there are a variety of States throughout the Northeast and Midwest that I don't think do as well as they should be doing under these formulations. I know this is a work in progress, and I know we are not done yet. I say that with the full knowledge of those who helped us work on it. I felt it necessary this evening, as we prepare to vote on cloture, knowing these formulas can get locked in and once they are locked in, it is awfully difficult to change them. Trying to add discretionary funding here and there may be satisfactory to some, but we are looking at a 6-year bill where economic development and congestion is so incredible. Tonight, one could go on Route 95 in my State and see that it is a parking lot. It isn't just between peak hours; it is getting that way all day long every day because of the tremendous congestion. As the Senator from Florida pointed out, we need to know what the mass transit piece of this legislation is going to be. I am pleased things seem to be moving in the right direction, but it is going to be awfully difficult to try to explain to people why certain States are just so limited in their ability to get the resources necessary to see to it that they can replace the older infrastructure to accommodate the tremendous demand that is building up in our region of the country. I hope we will take a look at some of these formulations. I say with all due respect to the seven States that are going to automatically get 35 percent, show me your need. If you have a need, I will listen, but if you are merely going to get a 35-percent increase because you have less than 20 people per square mile, population of less than 1 million, or median income of less than $35,000, how do you justify getting a 35- percent increase when the need doesn't exist? When there are other parts of the country that have tremendous need, how can you justify that we are only getting a fraction of that increase over the next 6 years? That is not how this ought to work. If we are going to start making decisions in this country on these kinds of formulations, then those of us who come from donor States, who contribute far more than we get back, are going to have to start making that kind of calculation on every issue that comes along. It strikes me that in too many cases the States getting the most out of this bill as presently crafted are the ones that contribute the least when it comes to Federal dollars, and those that contribute the most get back the least. We need to consider that as we move forward. Again, I appreciate immensely the work my colleagues have done in writing this legislation. It is not easy, I know that. I am grateful to them for giving me an ear when I talk about these issues and share my concerns that come from not only my State but a region of a country that runs as a belt across the Midwest and Northeast. I know my colleagues are cognizant of that. I am not telling them something of which they are unaware. Certainly, as we talk about a highway bill for the next 6 years, as well as transit when it comes along, we need to have formulations that are, as they historically have been, based on need, and not on a formulation that is going to disregard it. Whatever time I may have remaining, I yield it to my colleague from Missouri who, if I have another minute or so, I will give him those minutes to use as he sees fit.

Mr. DODD. Ten minutes.

Mr. DODD. No.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I inquire, those of us who would love to be heard on this----

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in tribute to U.S. Army SGM Philip Robert Albert, of Plymouth, CT, who lost his life on duty in Afghanistan on November 23, 2003. He was 41 years old. Sergeant Major Albert, a member of the 2nd Battalion of the 87th Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, was killed along with four other soldiers in a helicopter crash in northeastern Afghanistan. His service to his country will not be forgotten. Philip Albert was a career military man. He enlisted in the Army after graduating high school at 18 years of age, and he never looked back. He fought in the first gulf war in 1991 and was serving his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. Sergeant Major Albert was on the front lines in the war on terror, searching the mountains of Afghanistan for members of al-Qaida and the Taliban, protecting coalition forces as well as the Afghan people. Like so many of the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces, Philip Albert didn't consider himself a hero. For him, putting his life on the line for his country was simply part of his job--a job he did with dignity, courage, and honor. Sergeant Major Albert's devotion to his country was matched only by his love for his family. The youngest of 8 siblings, he enjoyed the company of his brothers and sisters, and he was especially fond of the time he spent with his many nieces and nephews. In recent years, Sergeant Major Albert had spoken with his family and friends about the possibility of retiring from the Army. But it was difficult for an individual like Philip Albert to walk away from the job he loved. After he witnessed the horrific attacks of September 11, he must have decided that America could use his experience, his dedication, and his service. Because once again, when his country called on him, Philip Albert answered the call. Philip Albert perished just a few days before Thanksgiving. The Thanksgiving holiday will obviously have a very different meaning for his family and friends for many, many years to come. But I would like them to know that each and every one of us in the Senate--and indeed every single American--owes a tremendous debt of thanks to Philip Albert. It is people like Sergeant Major Albert who make it possible for us to live each and every day in freedom, peace, and security. It is their sacrifices, in lands thousands of miles away, that keep us safe here at home. We must never forget those sacrifices--especially those of people like Philip Albert who have left us with a debt we can never repay. I offer my deepest sympathies to Philip Albert's family, and to everyone who knew and loved him.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in tribute to a distinguished public servant, and a member of the Senate for 18 years, Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana. Today, Senator Bayh is celebrating his 76th birthday. Earlier this week, I had the privilege of participating in an event honoring Senator Bayh at the University of Connecticut. Senator Bayh was recognized for his role as a chief architect of title IX, the historic legislation that prohibits discrimination against women in education. Before title IX became law in 1972, American women and girls were treated as second-class citizens in our educational system. They were discouraged from studying subjects like math, science, and law. Many schools and universities had separate entrance requirements for male and female students--and many others did not admit women at all. Those women who did gain admission were often subject to discriminatory policies. Some were denied scholarships and other forms of financial aid. Others were excluded from honor societies, clubs, and other organizations and activities. Thanks to title IX, women have taken their rightful place in American education--as students, teachers, professors, even university presidents. And equality in education has helped women find opportunities for success in virtually every aspect of American life. Today's women in America are doctors, lawyers, engineers, and business owners. They are mayors, governors, judges, and legislators. This distinguished body is privileged to count 14 women among its Members. And the day will likely soon come when this country elects its first woman President. Title IX's impact is felt not only in the classroom and the boardroom, but in the locker room as well. Since title IX was passed, the number of women playing collegiate sports has increased from about 32,000 to nearly 150,000. Today, 3 million high school girls play competitive sports, compared to only 300,000 thirty years ago. America has a successful professional women's basketball league. And every 4 years, the Women's World Cup in soccer attracts thousands of spectators, and millions of TV viewers, across our Nation. The University of Connecticut, whose female student-athletes excel in both academics and athletics, is a shining example of the dramatic and positive change that title IX has brought to our Nation. Birch Bayh was an ardent supporter of women's rights during his years of service in the Senate. In addition to title IX, he also helped craft the Equal Rights Amendment, which has been ratified by 35 States, including my home State of Connecticut. I would like to thank Senator Bayh as well as the many others who helped make title IX a reality. In particular, I'd like to recognize my friend and colleague Senator Ted Stevens for his role as the lead Senate cosponsor, as well as the bill's sponsors in the House, the late Edith Green of Oregon and the late Patsy Mink of Hawaii. And last but certainly not least, I'd like to express my appreciation and admiration for the countless girls and women in America over the years who fought to open doors that for so long were closed to them-- from schools to offices to military bases to voting booths. The long journey towards gender equality is not yet complete. But achievements like title IX show that there has indeed been taken great and meaningful strides in the right direction.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss briefly the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus appropriations bill passed today by the Senate. When the Senate was debating this measure, there were two motions to invoke cloture on the conference agreement. I opposed both motions. I did so in the hope that the Senate would revisit and revise several issues about which I have deep concerns. One issue is that the conference report allows the Labor Department to, in effect, deny overtime pay to approximately 8 million workers across our country. While both the House and the Senate opposed this policy by partisan majorities, that opposition was ignored by Republican conferees. Many workers who now qualify for overtime pay would find their jobs reclassified as a managerial or professional position, thus making them ineligible for overtime pay if they work in excess of 40 hours. This change is significant because overtime pay can provide as much as 25 percent of a worker's annual income. Instead of working towards creating new jobs and helping working families and individuals, the legislation creates yet another obstacle for millions of Americans to provide for themselves and their families. Second, the conference agreement delays the implementation of a mandate that requires country-of-origin labeling of meat. In an age where justified concerns are growing over the safety of our food supply--particularly beef products--I feel that it is important for our agricultural policies to include necessary information and safeguards for consumers. The issue of country of origin labeling on certain food items such as meats and produce is an effective way to address this issue providing consumers with a measure of control and choice in their food purchases. Third, the conference agreement excludes Senate-passed and House- passed measures to reimpose a 35 percent national television ownership cap that the FCC rescinded in June 2003. Instead the conference agreement establishes a 39-percent cap. The FCC ruling and the conference language, in my view, could clear the way for further consolidation in the broadcast media industry that could potentially allow a small number of owners to control a large proportion of our country's news, information, and entertainment sources, thus threatening to hurt both consumers and our democracy. Fourth, the conference agreement provides for the distribution of school vouchers to students in the District of Columbia public school system. Federally funded vouchers are bad policy for the District and for our Nation. Vouchers do not have a proven or substantial record of success. Students who receive vouchers have no guarantee that they will be accepted into the private school of their choice while parents have no means with which to know whether or not the private school is raising their child's achievement level. All we know for sure about vouchers is that they deprive public schools of vitally needed resources. Finally, the conference agreement critically underfunds educational activities in the No Child Left Behind Act by $8 billion and in title I by $6 billion. By denying localities adequate federal funds with which to raise school standards, student achievement and infrastructure standards, we are denying millions of children and their families across the country the educational resources they need to succeed. Regrettably, these provisions were neither revisited nor revised, and cloture was subsequently invoked. When the conference agreement was before the Senate for final consideration, I voted in favor of the bill. Despite the shortcomings mentioned above, I felt the legislation contained several important provisions that benefit both the country at large and the people of Connecticut. For instance, it contains $1.5 billion for States to make technological upgrades to their election systems. It also contains $1.2 billion in added resources for special education. In addition, it funds vital priorities in health care, law enforcement, and transportation. On balance, I believe this conference agreement, while needlessly flawed, is worthy of support. I intend to continue to work to rectify its shortcomings.